G181(P) Evaluation of a new e-health intervention in neonatal care : perspectives of parents and health professionals.

Aim This paper will report findings from the first phase of an evaluation of a new e-health intervention designed to allow mothers to ‘see’ their baby in neonatal care (NNU) when they are not able to be with them. The intervention, MyLittleOne, involves a web-camera being placed over the incubator in NNU, which transmits a real-time video wirelessly to a coupled tablet device at the mother’s bedside. Guided by the MRC Framework for the Development and Evaluation of Healthcare Interventions (MRC, 2008), the aim was to explore parent and professional views of the technology and make recommendations for its future development, use and evaluation. Methods A qualitative approach was adopted, guided by a critical realist perspective (McEvoy and Richards, 2003). The study took place in a Level 3 NNU in Scotland. Participants were recruited purposively and included parents (n = 33) and a range of health professionals working in neonatal and postnatal care (n = 21). The data were collected during semi-structured individual, paired and small group interviews and were analysed thematically using NVivo v10. Results The majority of parents and professionals spoke positively about MyLittleOne. Perceptions were that: use of the technology assisted bonding and responsiveness; it promoted the recovery process following birth; and, for mothers who wished to breast-feed, being able to see their baby on the tablet device encouraged the ‘let-down’ reflex. An additional benefit was that siblings and others who may not be able to visit the NNU were able to see the baby. In contrast, for a small number of mothers, viewing their baby remotely appeared to increase their levels of anxiety. Switching off the camera during a medical procedure and back on after the procedure was completed was found to be problematic, at times and in different ways, for both parents and professionals. Conclusions Findings from this preliminary evaluation will guide future developments of the technology, including its use in family homes following the mother’s discharge. The findings will also inform the design of a feasibility study and subsequent RCT to assess the impact of MyLittleOne on a range of psychological indicators of postnatal adjustment.

Exploring perspectives on Human Resource Development: an introduction.

The problem and the solution. This issue overview presents a brief justification for adopting a multiperspectival approach to theory and practice in human resource development (HRD). It is argued that such an approach has the potential to add theoretical depth and breadth to HRD discourse as well as contributing to reflective HRD practice.The contributions are then briefly introduced.

Supporting the case for “progressive universalism” in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model.

Aims. To explore parents and professionals’ experience of family assessment in health visiting (public health nursing), with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model (LCCM). Background. Health visitors (HVs) currently assess families as requiring core, additional or intensive support, and offer support at a corresponding level. The majority of families are assessed as core and receive no pro-active support beyond the early days. Previous assessment tools, consisting of checklists, have been criticised as being ineffective in identifying a range of health needs and unacceptable to parents and HVs. The LCCM model was developed and introduced in the study area to promote a partnership approach with parents and assess strengths as well as difficulties in parents’ capacity to care for their child. Methods. Qualitative methods were used. Ten mothers and twelve HVs took part in individual semi-structured interviews. Results. Most mothers were aware of the assessment process but some felt that they were not involved in the decision making process. Explaining the assessment process to parents is problematic and not all HVs do so. The assessment process was stressful for some mothers. HVs find the model useful for structuring and documenting the assessment process. Many believe that most families benefit from some support, using public health approaches. Families are often assessed as core because there are insufficient resources to support all those who meet the criteria of the additional category, and managers assess caseloads in terms of families with child protection concerns. Conclusions. The study findings support the concept of “progressive universalism” which provides a continuum of intensity of support to families, depending on need. Mothers would like better partnership working with HVs. Relevance to clinical practice. The study endorses proposed policy changes to re-establish the public health role of HVs and to lower the threshold for families to qualify for support.

Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: staff and student perspectives.

The setting, marking and providing feedback on assessments forms an important part of a tutor’s role. Studies into the use of feedback and how it is interpreted by students indicate a mismatch between what students are looking for and what tutors think they are giving. Tutors comment that students are more interested in the mark than the feedback, and yet students indicate that they do not get enough feedback, or that it is not useful. This study investigates student and staff perceptions of the linking of marking and feedback in face-to-face sessions. A cohort of year one university students were given the option of receiving either written feedback or a 15 minute meeting with one of their tutors to have their essay marked with them. Forty nine students chose face-to-face marking, the remaining 35 students received written feedback. Focus groups were used to investigate the student experience. Staff members were also asked to reflect on the process. Students and staff found the experience of face-to-face marking beneficial and positive. Both felt that the time spent together allowed for a feedback dialogue about the piece of work, and that staff could explain and justify why marks were given.